THE $200 TEXT -- The Smith - Frost Debate on Sabbath Day Adventism

"The Bible clearly teaches that the fourth commandment
of the Decalogue -- viz., 'Remember the Sabbath day,
to keep it holy' -- is binding on Christians under the new covenant."

THE $200 TEXT

In Wednesday's (December 14, 1949) issue of the Review-Journal there was an attractive ad placed by Mr. David F. Smith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church offering $200 for one text meeting any one of seven specifications. I hereby submit the requested text in the same public way in which the offer was made and make some observations of the Sabbath (with no additional charge) to claim the $200. I shall give the text from the King James version to meet specification number seven: "One TEXT that states, WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the weekly Sabbath was ABOLISHED."

"Abolish" means "to do away with wholly; to annul; to make void; as to abolish a law or custom, taxes, or folly." (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) Before I give the $200 text showing WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM abolished, let us first notice WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the Sabbath was GIVEN. Study the following texts:

Exodus 3l:13 (17), "Speak thou (Moses) also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my Sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between me and your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you."

Deuteronomy 5:15, "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day."

Nehemiah 9:l3-l4, "Thou (God) camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant."

The Sabbath was GIVEN:

WHEN -- After the children of Israel were delivered from Egyptian bondage, they came unto Mount Sinai where God gave them the law (Exodus 20) in which He MADE KNOWN unto them the holy Sabbath. In Exodus 16, as they came unto the wilderness of Sin, it is evident that they had not previously observed a Sabbath because Moses had to explain, "Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath." The next day he instructed, "Today is a Sabbath unto the Lord." There is no record of the Sabbath being MADE KNOWN unto any people before this time!

WHERE -- "Thou camest down also upon MOUNT SINAI . . . and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath."

BY WHOM -- "THOU (God) . . . madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant."

Let us also ask TO WHOM and WHY:

TO WHOM -- "Verily my Sabbaths shall ye (children of Israel) keep: for it is a sign between me and your generations." "It is a sign between ME and the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."

WHY -- "It is a SIGN between me and your generations; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD THAT DOTH SANCTIFY YOU."

Now we shall see what happened to the law given to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, graven in stones, by which God MADE KNOWN His holy Sabbath. What happened to the law happened to all of its parts, including every part -- including the Sabbath!

Here Is The Text
Worth $200

2 Corinthians 3:7-11, 14, "If the ministration of death, written and ENGRAVEN IN STONES, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which IS DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious... Their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in reading of the Old Testament; which vail IS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST."

When any law is done away, all of its parts vanish with it of necessity. For any part of the previous law to be of power it must be re-enacted into the new law. It cannot remain by reason of the old! The Sabbath was "done away" in the law that MADE IT KNOWN.

Will Mr. Smith please remit the $200? His honesty and the integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are now at stake. Let's not have him say that the words "Sabbath," "when," "where," "by whom," and "abolished" are not in the text and excuse himself of his obligation. He did not ask for a text using the words, but that "states" (To set; settle; fix. To set forth in detail or in gross; to narrate. Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) those points.

In the event he cannot see the points, let us examine the text and see what it "sets forth."

ABOLISHED -- The text uses the expressions "done away" speaking of the whole law of which the Sabbath is a part. So if "done away" in whole, "done away" in part -- out goes the Sabbath! The text quoted next will "settle" this point even more firmly.

BY WHOM -- "Done away in CHRIST."

WHEN -- The expression "IN CHRIST" begs the time. Paul shows this to be his death in Hebrews 8:7; 9:16-17. Thus he speaks in Colossians 2:14-16, "nailed to the cross." That is when!

2 Corinthians 3:7-14 "states" WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the Sabbath was ABOLISHED! It therefore satisfies the specification and claims the $200.

The Clincher At No
Additional Cost

Colossians 2:14-16, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

The text mentions "Sabbath" and "nailed to his cross," satisfying the inquiries of

WHEN -- The time of "his cross," AD 33.

WHERE -- "his cross" was just out of Jerusalem.

BY WHOM -- "his" is Christ (verse 11 and 17).

The $200 well-earned!

Notice that the Sabbath has not only been "nailed to his cross," but "let no man therefore judge you in respect of an holy day"!

Demonstrating fair sportsmanship, I'll give Mr. Smith a chance to earn back the $200 which should be forthcoming. I'll return the $200 for the text

1. That names the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

2. That commands a Christian to keep the Sabbath.

P.S. Please send the $200 to:

Gene Frost, Minister
CHURCH OF CHRIST
1330 South Third

THE $200 TEXT

Planning an audience participation at my church, I offered $200 for a text. The date, time and place for this meeting when claims for the money would be considered were printed plainly in the newspaper advertisement. A number of my own congregation, plus a number of friends of different faiths attended this meeting. During the service I made a public call for any text to be suggested by the audience that might be considered for the reward money. NO TEXTS WERE OFFERED BY THE AUDIENCE.

Three days after the announced time for this meeting had passed a strange claim appeared in the newspaper ad, advanced by one, Gene Frost, who claimed a right to the reward money. It seems that if this party had honestly felt that he had a right to the reward money -- then he would have ATTENDED THE MEETING WHEN IT WAS TO BE GIVEN AWAY.

I would not have troubled to reply, had the ad not contained several misstatements of fact, which should be answered.

Sabbath Before Sinai

Misstatement No. 1 implied that the Sabbath was not given before it was presented to the Jews at Mt. Sinai.

Obviously before a band of ignorant slaves could be made into a great nation for God, they needed instruction. But to imply that such principles of right were not in effect before this time is contrary to Scripture. In Rom. 3:20 the Apostle Paul writes, "For by the law is the knowledge of sin." In Rom. 4 :5, he states, "Where no law is there is no transgression."

In Rom. 3:23 and 5:l2 he states twice that all have sinned. Now if all have sinned, and yet where no law is there is no transgression; this indicates that the law has been in existence since the beginning of human life on this planet. He amplifies this further in Rom. 3:23 by stating "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed WHEN THERE IS NO LAW."

What law is the apostle talking about, which reveals sin? In Rom. 7:7 he states, "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." What law is it that contains the rule against coveting? As every Sunday school child knows, this rule is a part of the TEN COMMANDMENTS -- the law that at Sinai was graven in tables of stone by the finger of God.

The apostle states further in Rom. 7:12, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good." The enemies of the Law of God are shown up in their true light where the Apostle writes in Rom. 8:6,7. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is ENMITY AGAINST GOD for it is NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF GOD neither indeed can be."

Sabbath Made at Creation

Sabbath keeping was enjoined upon the ISRAELITES while they were traveling toward Sinai (Ex. 16) but it was made for MAN at the creation of the world. Gen. 2:2, 3: "And on the seventh day God, ended His work which He had created and made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and SANCTIFIED it: because in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Mark 2:27: "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was MADE for MAN and not man for the Sabbath."

The two oldest religious institutions observed by man are marriage and the Sabbath. They are the twin institutions which come to us from the garden of Eden. The Sanctification of both, by God Himself, is recorded in the SECOND chapter of Genesis. This is even before the entrance of sin, which in the Genesis Narrative, takes place in the THIRD chapter.

Neither marriage or the Sabbath could have been abolished with the law that was done away at the cross, because this law was added "BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSION." (Gal. 3:19) Marriage and the Sabbath were made for man BEFORE sin entered the world, hence obviously were not added because of transgression.

Sabbath Memorial

The Sabbath was made to be MEMORIAL of the creation of the world. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath day of the Lord thy God . . . FOR in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, WHEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Ex. 20:5-11. The law which was abolished at the cross is positively identified in Col. 2:14. "Blotting out the HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES that was out of the way, nailing it to his cross . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME . . ." That the handwriting of ordinances is a different law from God's great moral law, the ten commandments, is obvious from the following texts:

LAW OF GOD
Spoken by God. Deut. 4:12, 1
Written with finger of God in tables of stone. Ex. 31:18.
Placed in ark. Deut. 10:1-5.
Perfect. Ps. 19:7.
Stand fast forever. Ps. 111:7, 8.
Not destroyed by Christ. Matt. 5:17.
Christ to magnify it. Isa. 42:21
Gives knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20.
Law of liberty. James 9:10-12.
Heart of new covenant. Heb. 8:10 and 10:16

HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCE
Spoken by Moses. Lev. 1:1-3.
Written by Moses in a book. Deut. 31:24.
Inside of ark. Deut. 31:24-26.
Made nothing perfect. Heb. 9:17.
Nailed to cross. Col. 2:14.
Abolished by Christ. Eph. 2:15.
Taken away by Christ. Col. 2:14.
Added because of sin. Gal. 3:19.
Contrary to us. Col. 2:14.
Old covenant promises. Heb. 8:5-9.

Since the abolishment of the handwriting of ordinances we are to let no man judge us of the holydays or Sabbath days WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME. The Hebrew festival of the Passover was a Sabbath which POINTED FORWARD to Christ. After Christ came there was no point in observing it further. He instituted the communion to be observed by Christians from henceforth. In 1 Cor. 5:7 the Apostle Paul shows how it pointed forward to Christ, when he states its fulfillment: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us." There were many other ceremonial Sabbaths which similarly pointed forward to Christ. They were MONTHLY Sabbaths and YEARLY Sabbaths. These were a part of the handwriting of ordinances and were abolished at the cross.

However the WEEKLY Sabbath was not a shadow of things to come. It is a memorial of an event in the PAST -- the creation of this world, as shown above with proof. Hence even though I can quote 2 Col. 2:14-6 by memory, still I am looking for a text that states where and by whom the weekly Sabbath was abolished. Even though the time limit in the text contest has long since expired, I would be happy to pay $200 for such a text.

Ministration of Death

2 Cor. 3:7, "But the ministration of death, written and graven in stones, was glorious . . . how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" This, as Mr. Frost supposed, DOES refer to the ten commandments. The giving of the law was the ministration of death to sin and sinners. For, "Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3 :4 and "The wages of sin is death." Rom. 6:23.

This ministration of death IS to BE DONE AWAY in the experience of all who accept Jesus and allow Him to save them from sin. But Matt. 1 :21 does not say that Jesus will save His people IN their sins. It says FROM their sins. To be saved from drowning means actually escape the watery death. To be saved from prison means actually to be released from behind its iron bars. As the Apostle Paul aptly argues, "Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? GOD FORBID. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Rom. 6:1, 2.

The ministration of death, graven in stones, is abolished every time a sinner comes to Christ, accepts his saving power and STOPS SINNING. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: Yea we ESTABLISH THE LAW." Rom. 3:31.

The penalty -- the ministration of death -- is abolished when we accept Christ's sacrifice for sins, but by what streak of presumption could we go ahead and continue to break those commandments, and make of none effect the blood of the Son of God. (Heb. 10:28, 29) If the ministration of death was glorious, should not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

When this divine miracle takes place in us and we become TRUE followers of Christ and his apostles, then the law is "Written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the HEART." 2 Cor. 3 :3.

Anti-law Teachers

John Wesley, noted founder of the Methodist Church, says:

In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly "judge the law" itself, and "speak evil of the law": who teach men to break (to dissolve, to loose, to untie the obligation of) not one only, whether of the least, but all the commandments at a stroke. The most surprising of all the circumstances that attend this strong delusion, is that they who are given up to it, really believe that they honor Christ by overthrowing his law, and that they are magnifying His office while they are destroying His doctrine!

Yea, they honor Him just as Judas did when he said, "Hail, Master," and kissed Him. And He may as justly say to every one of them, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?" It is no other than betraying Him with a kiss, to talk of His blood, and take away His crown, to set light by any part of His law, under pretense of advancing His gospel. Nor indeed can anyone escape this charge, who preaches faith in any such manner as either directly or indirectly sets aside any branch of obedience: who preaches Christ so as to annul, or weaken in any wise, the least of the commandments of God."
Wesley's Works, Sermon 95.

As To The Future

While, after prayerful consideration, I have decided that it would be best to answer, in a respectful manner, the charges published in the paper on Dec. 21 -- I am not at all convinced that the cause of Christ would be advanced, by having this discussion continue in print from week to week. While men of good will everywhere are praying for "peace on earth" I do not think it would be fitting or proper for two ministers who are striving to preach the gospel, to carry on a private war through the public press.

However, any who are interested in pursuing this subject are cordially invited to attend the announced services at the Seventh-day Adventist church, and to read the following books on the subject:

M. L. ANDREASON, The Sabbath -- Which Day and Why?
Cloth $1.50.

CHARLES L. TAYLOR, The Marked Bible
Paper bound 50c
(The true story of a young ex-convict's conversion. Contains arguments pro and con by Catholic priests and ministers of several denominations on the Sabbath question.)

FRANK H. YOST, Ph.D. The Early Christian Sabbath
Paper 50c.

ROBERT LEE ODOM, The Lord's Day on a Round World
Cloth $1.50.

(Publishers will be furnished on request, or you may order through the secretary of the local Seventh-day Adventist Church).

David F. Smith, Pastor,
Seventh-day Adventist Church.

THE $200 TEXT

I was happy to see Mr. David Smith's reply in the Sunday (January 1, 1950) issue of the Review-Journal to what he thought was a "strange" answer to his ad offer of December 14th.

I was disappointed, however, to see Mr. Smith delve in personalities and make excuses for not fulfilling his ad offer. Since he did attack my honesty, I must defend it for the sake of the truth. He said:

It seems to me that if this party had honestly felt that he had a right to the reward money -- then he would have ATTENDED THE MEETING WHEN IT WAS TO BE GIVEN AWAY.

What I "honestly" believed was that Mr. Smith would be as honest as his challenge. His excuse might appear legitimate where the facts are unknown. His offer boasted:

I hereby offer $200 for one Bible text from the Bible -- either the King James (Protestant) Version or the Douay (Catholic) Version -- stating that Sunday -- the first day of the week should be observed by Christians as a day of rest and worship. A text meeting any one of seven specifications below will be sufficient to claim the $200.

Signed: David F. Smith

Pastor, Seventh-day Adventist Church

(I answered specification 7: "One TEXT that states, WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the weekly Sabbath was ABOLISHED.")

This, Mr. Smith, is the offer. Where is the statement that "plainly" limits its fulfillment as to date, time, and place? You ought to be ashamed of this apparent misstatement of fact! Mr. Smith now says, "Even though the time limit in the text contest has long since expired, I would be happy to pay $200 for such a text." Mr. Smith, "would" or "do" you intend to stand by your ad boast?

I have something more to say about this matter of honesty. I was honest enough to give the text he requested stating WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM the Sabbath was ABOLISHED, which text Mr. Smith has voluntarily admitted referred to the ten commandments! But he didn't give the text that I requested:

1. That names the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Is he honest in promoting an organization unknown to the pages of God's Word, that exists without one mention in the Holy Record?

2. That commands a Christian to keep the Sabbath? I was honest enough to stand for what I believe -- was he?

I mention these things to keep the record straight.

My Attitude

My motive for meeting the challenge of Mr. Smith was not mercenary, but for the sake of the truth. Man cannot be saved by false doctrine, even though it is propagated under the guise of religion. While I hate the false doctrines of men, I love the souls involved. It is with the prayer that the truth of God's Word will lead souls out of the false way that I challenge Seventh-day Adventist doctrine. I am asking Mr. Smith to leave out personalities in future discussions and let us examine the issue before us in the light of God's Word for the edification of all men. When man resorts to dealing in personalities, I know that he is unable to support his doctrine scripturally.

The Issue

The issue before us is not whether God ever gave a Sabbath, which is the seventh day, for on this we agree. The issue is, to whom did God make it known and when. Or, more aptly, is the Seventh-day Sabbath enjoined on Christians in this present dispensation?

In my previous article I showed WHEN, WHERE, BY WHOM, TO WHOM and WHY the Sabbath was GIVEN: On Mount Sinai after their deliverance from Egypt (Neh. 9:13-14, Exodus 16, 20), God (Neh. 9:13-14. Deut. 5:15) gave to the children of Israel (Exodus 31:17) the Sabbath, a sign that they might know that He is the Lord that sanctifieth them (Exodus 31:13).

In answer, he says that the Sabbath was made at CREATION. He quotes Genesis 2:2-3 and fails to give it his attention. Moses said, as the accepted author of Genesis, "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." WHEN did he bless and sanctify the seventh day as a Sabbath? Not possibly at CREATION, for he blessed it because He HAD RESTED. "Had rested" is past perfect tense of the verb and refers to an action already completed in the past. The seventh day was sanctified sometime following creation, his rest. It could not have been the day He rested because He blessed it because He HAD RESTED! There is no indication that it was ever made known before Mount Sinai. Mr. Smith says, "Obviously before a band of ignorant slaves could be made into a great nation for God, they needed instruction." WHY did they need instructions to keep the Sabbath if it had already been given? Certainly, "Sabbath keeping was enjoined upon the Israelites while they were traveling toward Sinai," as Mr. Smith says! It was not given or sanctified before!

In his attempt to show that the Sabbath was given at creation, Mr. Smith quotes Romans 4:15, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." This to him "proves" that the Sabbath was given at creation, though there is no mention of either creation or the Sabbath. He assumes the very thing he sets out to prove. He reasons that "law" refers to the ten commandments. If so, it "worketh wrath" (verse 15) and "faith is made void" (verse 14). Further, Paul says that Christ has "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments!" (Eph. 2:15) If every transgression means that the ten commandments have been broken, as he is forced to affirm, which of the ten did Adam and Eve break? The men of Israel in 1 Sam. 14:33? All of his arguments are based on assumption. He can answer his own arguments by answering the following question: Does God have any commandments besides the ten? I predict that he will not answer.

More Assuming

The Adventists assume: That the "law of God" and the "law of Moses" were two different laws.

The Bible teaches: That they are one and the same law, and uses the expressions interchangeably. "This Ezra went up from Babylon. And he was a ready scribe in the LAW OF MOSES . . . Ezra the priest, a scribe of the LAW OF GOD." (Ezra 7:6, 12) The expressions are also used interchangeably in Nehemiah 8:1, 8, and again in Luke 2:22, 23.

The Adventists assume: That Moses gave the law of Moses, not God.

The Bible teaches: That God gave the law of Moses. "This Ezra went up from Babylon. And he was a ready scribe in the LAW OF MOSES which the LORD GOD OF ISRAEL HAD GIVEN." (Ezra 7:6).

The Adventists assume: That God alone gave the law of God.

The Bible teaches: That Moses gave the law of God. "And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the Lord, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the LAW OF THE LORD GIVEN BY MOSES." (2 Chron. 34:14)

This all proves that the Adventists are wrong in teaching that the ''law of God" and the ''law of Moses'' are two separate laws. There was only one law. What Moses gave was by God's authority.

This law (including the Sabbath) I have already shown was done away. WHEN, WHERE, and BY WHOM. (Re-read my first reply in the Review-Journal, December 22, 1949.)

Smith Admits The Sabbath
Was Done Away

Notice in his reply with reference to 2 Corinthians 3. Mr. Smith said, "This, as Mr. Frost supposed, DOES refer to the ten commandments." That's fine -- the disagreement ceases. 2 Cor. 3:11, "For if that (the ten commandments according to Mr. Smith) which IS DONE AWAY was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." The ten commandments -- including the SABBATH -- DONE AWAY! "Let no man therefore judge you in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come!" (Col. 2:16) Mr. Smith affirms my claim for the $200. Again his honesty and integrity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church are at stake!

A Play For Sympathy

Mr. Smith next makes a play for sympathy to the Methodists, though I fear they'll not hear his cry. With all due respect to John Wesley, my friends, he is not God, neither is his word the Word of God. Mr. Smith evidently fears the power of God's Word against him and now seeks consolation in the words of man.

The Public Should Know

1. That the Adventists do not keep the Sabbath. Keeping the Sabbath requires the following:

     (1) Doing no work. (Ex. 20:9-10)
     (2) No baking or boiling. (Ex. 16:23)
     (3) Bearing no burden. (Jer. 17:21-22)
     (4) Offering two lambs. (Num. 28:9-10)

If they argue that these things were abolished because they are not in the ten commandments, why then do they refuse to eat pork? There is no prohibition against eating pork in the ten commandments. The doctrine of abstaining from meat today is of the devil. (1 Tim. 4:1-4)

2. That the Seventh-day Adventist Church denomination is not in the Bible.

3. That they are "deceitful workers." (2 Cor. 11:13) They conceal their identity as long as possible in their personal work, and their broadcasts and public services are presented under titles that do not reveal their true identity.

4. That Adventists assume the major premise in nearly all that they teach.

With love for their souls, I cry out, "Come out from this error!" Study the Scriptures -- prove all things!

As To The Future

For those interested in a full investigation of the issues involved, I am willing to pursue this subject. I am willing to sign the following proposition with Mr. Smith, and to make possible a copy of our respective articles to those interested. I suggest the following agreement:

1. To conduct a written discussion.

2. The purpose of this discussion is that it may be published in full with the ad and articles leading up to said discussion.

3. Each disputant will write four articles to the proposition.

4. Length of each article will be 4000 words, not varying more than 100 words shorter or longer.

5. The proposition: "The Bible clearly teaches that the fourth commandment of the Decalogue -- viz., 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy' -- is binding on Christians under the new covenant."

_____________, affirms.
Gene Frost, denies.

I am asking everyone interested in this discussion to please forward to me his name and address. Mr. Smith has indicated that there will be no further correspondence through the public press. In order to inform you of further developments, drop me a postal card (P.O. Box 1896) or telephone 2471-W or 3127 M.

I, too, can supply you with a book, though I do not choose to be unfair and send one, the contents of which have not been subjected to investigation by a Sabbath advocate. Therefore, I recommend the Dugger-Porter Debate, a discussion of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. Price: $1.00 (paper bound), $1.50 (cloth).

GENE FROST, Minister
CHURCH OF CHRIST
1330 South Third

The Bible clearly teaches that the fourth commandment of the Decalogue -- viz., "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" -- is binding on Christians under the new covenant.

Some law is binding on Christians since the death of Christ, for James in his epistle written A.D. 60 urges us to keep it. (Read Chapters 1 and 2) Whatever law this is, James insists that EVERY PART OF IT is binding. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10.

What law was binding on Christians in the time when James wrote his epistle? If the ten commandments recorded in Exodus 20 are binding, then the fourth one, which is the Sabbath commandment, is binding. If the ten commandments have been abolished prior to A.D. 60; then we must seek out the new law for Christians to see whether the Sabbath is included.

The New Testament plainly indicates that there are some Old Testament requirements that are binding on Christians since the cross. "And that from a child thou hast learned the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ." 2 Tim. 3:15. Paul is writing to Timothy, the young minister at the church of Ephesus. (1 Tim. 1:2 and 4:6) This second letter was written from Rome when Paul was about to be brought before Nero the second time, about A.D. 66. All authorities agree that the earliest of the New Testament Books were not written before about 54 A.D.

This means that the Scriptures Timothy was taught out of as a child, could be none other than the Old Testament. Christ called the Old Testament "Scripture" when He said to the Jewish leaders, "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39. Under the word "Scripture" in Cruden's concordance we read:

The word as used in the Bible refers almost invariably to the sacred writings, which at that time consisted of the Old Testament. It is also used of a part of it, especially when that part is to be quoted in a later passage.

The Old Testament, which Timothy was taught as a child is able to make him wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, says Paul. Now let us read the verse which follows, "ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Tim. 3:16.

What could the apostle mean here when he tells us that ALL scripture is profitable? Could we by any twist of the imagination think that he means only part of it? Some would say, yes the Old Testament is all right for the stories it has, and for the inspiration of Psalms. We can learn things by reading it, but we do not have to follow it in New Testament times. But is this what the BIBLE SAYS here in 2 Tim. 3:16? It says ALL scripture is profitable for DOCTRINE.

What is doctrine? Webster's dictionary says, "That which is taught, the principles, belief, or dogma, of any church, sect or party." According to this text written by Paul ALL scripture is profitable then to give us the principles of belief of the Christian church. It is not only profitable for doctrine, but also for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, as mentioned in this text.

How could Paul tell us any plainer than in these words that the Old Testament is the guide book of the Christian as well as the new? He states that it is profitable for all these phases of Christian teaching. He says it can make one wise unto salvation.

Peter warns us that Paul has written some things hard to be understood, and that some who are unstable, wrest these and other scriptures to their own destruction. (2 Pet. 3:15,16) What should we do with the parts of scripture that we cannot understand? "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are REVEALED belong unto us and to our children for ever . . ." Deut. 29:29

There is no statement of Paul's which is plainer nor easier to understand than verses 15 and 16 of 2 Timothy, chapter 3. So we KNOW that there are things in the Old Testament that are profitable for doctrine, etc., under the new covenant. Paul has specifically and plainly told us the forms of worship which are no longer to he observed, also. So why not put the two together? Is not this the wise plan to take exactly what the Bible tells us, rather than to read into it something that is not there?

Now what are these old Testament forms of worship which are not required in the new? Paul specifically points them out so that there need be no question. CIRCUMCISION is one. (Gal. 6:15) In fact the arguments about the law in Galatians were given because someone was urging circumcision upon the Galatian church. ''They constrain you to be circumcised.'' Gal. 6:12

THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD was also not to be continued. (Heb. 7:11, 12) And of course the change in the priesthood indicated a change in the law which regulated the priesthood. However the ten commandments say nothing about the priesthood, so there is no indication here of a change in the ten commandments.

THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES, which were a shadow of things to come, were also abolished. Col. 2:14-16. In this list all forms of worship involving meat, drink, holyday, new moon, and Sabbath days WHICH ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME are abolished. (Vs. 17).

The Levitical law tells of many ceremonial MEAT and DRINK offerings. These pointed forward to Christ, and therefore come under the list mentioned in Col. 2 which are "Shadows of things to come." See Heb. 9:9-12. An illustration in point is THE PASSOVER LAMB which was to be eaten with bitter herbs. This pointed forward to Christ, as indicated in 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ, our Passover, is sacrificed for us."

But does the, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink" statement of Col. 2 abolish ALL regulations regarding eating and drinking? No. We find that there are OTHER OLD TESTAMENT REGULATIONS that are still in force in the New. The Bible mentions some specifically in Acts 21 :25. Abstain from THINGS STRANGLED, from things OFFERED TO IDOLS and from BLOOD. These are Old Testament regulations which Acts definitely mentions as being in force in the New!

Because of the law against the use of blood, the Jews were careful to kill animals in such a manner as to permit free bleeding. We find this idea in the warning given by the church council against things strangled. The law against eating blood is found in Deut. 12 :23, 24, as well as in a number of other places in the Old Testament.

Why do I mention this about meats in seeking to prove that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is still binding? The above mentioned text (Col. 2:14-l7) is used repeatedly as an evidence by those who think the Sabbath is abolished, and so we must consider the text as a whole to see what it teaches. The above scriptures prove conclusively that the reference to meat and drink does not abolish all Old Testament regulations regarding eating and drinking. AND DOES IT NOT FOLLOW as the night the day that NEITHER does the reference to a holyday and Sabbath days in the same verse abolish ALL SABBATH REGULATIONS of the Old Testament!

It merely abolishes those that it SAYS it abolishes: Those which are a shadow of things to come! (verse 17)

Now let us candidly compare these ceremonial Sabbaths, which were shadows of things to come with the Sabbath of the 4th commandment. Three typical ones are the Passover Sabbath (treated above), The Feast of Tabernacles, and the Day of Atonement. At the feast of tabernacles the people offered the first-fruits of their crops to the Lord. It pointed forward to Christ in that He became the "First-fruits of them that slept." (1 Cor. 15 :20, 23) On the day of atonement, the high priest entered the most holy place of the sanctuary, and sprinkled the blood of a lamb before the ark of God to make an atonement for the sins of the people. That this pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb of God, is indicated in Rom. 5:11. ". . . Our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."

By way of contrast let us now consider the weekly Sabbath -- the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. "And God blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it BECAUSE in it he HAD RESTED from all his work which he had created and made." At the Sabbath’s first mention it points BACKWARD to a completed task. In the fourth commandment again a pointing backward is indicated: "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy GOD . . . FOR in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day."

The Sabbath is a memorial. When we erect a memorial of some great statesman it POINTS BACKWARD reminding us of the life he lived for his country. The inscription gives dates of the past, his birth and death, and perhaps a mention of some of his most famous deeds. The Sabbath is not a memorial of the dead but of the living, it is to turn our thoughts to him every time we REMEMBER that in six days he created the heavens and the earth. The fourth is the only commandment that begins with the word REMEMBER. The Sabbath command is the only one that gives a reason for keeping it, the fact that God created the heavens and the earth.

It has been shown conclusively that there are Old Testament teachings which are PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE under the new covenant. (2 Tim. 3:15,16) It has been proven that Col. 2:14-17 does not abolish all Old Testament commands even regarding eating and drinking for New Testament Christians. (Acts 21 :25) It not only does not abolish all commands in the respects listed in the text but SPECIFICALLY LIMITS ITSELF to those things pointing forward to Christ.

Thus the Sabbath of the fourth commandment escapes the abolishment of Col. 2:14-17 on THREE COUNTS.

(2) That this text does not even abolish all Old Testament commands regarding the activities which it specifically mentions (as in meat and drink).

(3) It specifically limits its abolishment to those things which were shadows of things to come, while the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to be remembered because of THE CREATION OF THIS EARTH which is in the past. (Ex. 20:8-11)

It has been argued that in the phrase "Sabbath days" in Col. 2 :16, that the word "days" is in italics, and that the text should read, "Or of the Sabbath." Such an argument is merely a play on words and an insult to the intelligence of any scholarly audience. The original Greek here is . The form is the genitive plural, and is translated literally, "or of Sabbaths." See any diaglott or analytical Greek lexicon. THEREFORE, in no sense does the weekly Sabbath find itself included under the items named abolished in Col. 2:14-17.

Now let us continue with our list of Old Testament forms of worship which are abolished in the New Testament. CEREMONIAL WASHINGS AND ANIMAL SACRIFICES are mentioned specifically as no longer necessary. (Heb. 9:10-14) Also the SANCTUARY built on the plan given to Moses is called a figure of the true one in heaven, where Jesus now ministers as our high priest in this dispensation. (Heb. 9:24, 8:1,2)

The teachings of the Bible are specific. God does not leave his will for us to be learned by guesswork. All Old Testament rules no longer binding under the old covenant are SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT in the New Testament. Even such a minor ordinance as circumcision, we find discussed repeatedly, so that there will be no mistake. The end of the priesthood, (Levitical) the end of ceremonial washings, the end of those things having to do with meats, drinks, holydays and Sabbaths which were a shadow of things to come, the end of the sanctuary service, the end of animal sacrifices.

BUT WHERE in all this do we find the end of the SABBATH of the fourth commandment? It is conspicuous by its absence. ALL these minor details of worship are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED. Does it not follow that if the SABBATH was to have been abolished, it would have been MENTIONED?

God is not the author of confusion. Can we accuse him now of being so inconsistent as to abolish the Sabbath and not even REFER to it, with its honored place among the ten great rules graven in stone by the finger of God; and at the same time to take great space to enumerate all these OTHER things which did not even merit being included with the ten commandments?

WHERE IS IT??? I sincerely want to know. I will still give $200 for a text stating when, where, and by whom the weekly Sabbath was abolished.

What has been said of the Sabbath is true of the OTHER COMMANDMENTS of the ten. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find that the rule against idolatry, or graven images, or blasphemy, or dishonor to parents, or murder, or adultery, or theft, or false witness, or coveting is no longer to be observed. While WHOLE CHAPTERS and BOOKS of the New Testament are given to discussing the items of the ceremonial law which are no longer in effect: WHY -- if the ten commandments were abolished -- is there not a single mention of the least item of these great principles being done away?

The absence of any New Testament evidence that the Sabbath has been done away is a powerful argument for its continued existence. Those who would put forward a new day for the veneration of Christians, must first show where the old came to an end. This they are unable to do.

But how about its importance? This is the next question that comes to our minds. Suppose that it does exist as a forgotten law -- still in force on the statute books of God, but forgotten by man. Is it important enough that he should turn against present day customs and usage, and order his life by the pure faith once delivered to the saints?

If this rule had been forgotten by all New Testament characters, we might well question its importance. But the fact that we have INSTRUCTION in the NEW TESTAMENT on HOW TO KEEP IT indicates that the Lord did consider it important for the New Testament Christians. In fact the Sabbath comes in for more than its share of comment on how to keep it, compared with the amount of space given to the keeping of the other 9 commandments.

(1) "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath, and justifies his deed with these words. He also indicates that it is proper to act in cases of emergency to relieve suffering, by giving the example of the ox in the ditch. (See Matt. 12:10-12)

(2) It is proper to attend religious services. "And Jesus . . . came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and AS HIS CUSTOM WAS, he went into the synagogue on the SABBATH DAY and stood up for to read." (Luke 4:14-16) "And he (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." (Acts 18:4).

(3) "In it thou shalt not do any work." (Ex. 20:8-11) "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT." (Luke 23:56)

(4) In emergency it is proper to take measures to relieve our own hunger or discomfort on the Sabbath. "And at that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through a field of corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." Matt. 12:1. That Jesus considered this to be an emergency is indicated by the fact that he justified this deed to the Pharisees by quoting another emergency, when David, fleeing for his life ate of the shewbread, which was for the priests only. (Matt. 12:3, 4)

(5) The day of preparation is for all work that can be taken care of before the Sabbath. (Luke 23:54)

(6) It is proper to go out among the beauties of nature. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." (Acts 16:13)

It has been conclusively shown that there is no evidence that the weekly Sabbath is abolished. It has also become evident that the New Testament contains teaching on how to keep the Sabbath. It will now further indicate that the Bible "clearly teaches" that the Sabbath is binding if we find that the ten commandments in whose very heart the Sabbath rule is found, are binding on Christians under the new covenant.

A favorite text of those who would seek to show the ten commandments abolished is 2 Cor. 3:7, "But if the ministration of death, written and graven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory IN THIS RESPECT, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." (2 Cor. 3:7-13)

All that this long scripture plainly claims abolished is the glory of Moses' face. This was to be done away. He covered it with a vail so that the people could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. Some who are anxious to read into this that the law is done away, apparently would have us believe that because the passage ends with the word "abolished" therefore everything mentioned in the texts foregoing is abolished. But the scripture DOES NOT SAY SO. If we took this extreme view then the ministration of condemnation is abolished, in which case no one will be lost, everyone will be saved, John 3:16 is meaningless. Paul's missionary journeys were not necessary, and the people who take the trouble to be religious today are going through a lot of useless motions.

The scripture DOES plainly state that the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones is not as glorious as the ministration of the spirit. It further amplifies this truth by stating that if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

What is the purpose of this ministration of death and condemnation by the Law? "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law: that EVERY MOUTH may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Rom. 3:19) The purpose of the law is to let us know that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) We must come to this place before we realize our need of a Savior. This is how the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. (Gal. 3:24)

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law." Rom. 3 :31

The third chapter of 2 Corinthians, far from proving that we do not need to order our lives in harmony with the ten commandments, merely indicates the three steps in the Christian life, sometimes referred to as the three "R's" of Christianity. They are: (1) Ruin by the fall. (2) Redemption through the blood. (3) Regeneration by the spirit. The ministration of death has to do with the first "R." After the sinner knows that he is under condemnation, THEN he comes to Christ for redemption (the 2nd "R"). And if the ministration of death was glorious is not the ministration of the spirit rather glorious? After receiving forgiveness of sin he receives cleansing from sin the new birth, the regeneration of the spirit, (3rd "R") and if the ministration of condemnation was glorious is not the ministration of righteousness exceeding in glory?

Are we justified by the deeds of the law? According to Rom. 3:19, 20 the law was given that every mouth may be stopped and ALL THE WORLD become guilty before God. THEREFORE by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." Why? Because everyone has broken it. Paul is not making a rule, he is just stating a fact. Simple, isn't it? Everyone broke it, so naturally no one can be justified by keeping it. NO ONE EVER HAS kept it except Jesus.

The purpose of the law is to show us our sins. James compares the law to a mirror. (Jas. 1 :23-25) We look at it and it shows up the blemishes in our lives. But will my face be clean if I smash the mirror to bits? Not at all. The mirror is to help me. Neither will the enemies of the law clean up their sinful hearts by trying to show it abolished. WE NEED IT. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin (lawbreaking, 1 John 3:4) that grace may abound? GOD FORBID. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Rom. 6:1, 2)

Some law is binding on Christians since the death of Christ. There is not one scrap of evidence in the New Testament proving that the ten commandments were abolished. The Bible makes plain the forms of worship which were done away, but THE WHOLE TENOR of New Testament teaching is to uphold the ten commandments. The Holy Spirit seems to exhaust human vocabulary, using comparison, and admonition, and precept and example and illustration to make these things plain.

Some law is binding on Christians in the new covenant. Whatever law this is James says that every PART of it is binding. We have found many parts of the ceremonial law not binding, so this could not be it. THE ONLY LAW -- containing the commands against murder and adultery, of which NO PART is said to be abolished in the New Testament, is the TEN COMMANDMENTS. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. FOR HE that said DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY said also DO NOT KILL." Jas. 2:10-12

What law was binding on Christians in the time when James wrote his epistle? There can be no doubt. There is no question about it. That law, which is Christ said He came not to destroy; that law, which Paul tells us is holy, just and good ; that law, which James tells us we will be judged by is none other than the ten commandments, graven in stone by the finger of God.

If the ten commandments are binding on Christians today, then the Sabbath command of the fourth commandment is binding also. If we break the Sabbath we commit sin. We are sinners and stand condemned, and the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)

"TURN away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable . . ." Isa. 58:13.

I am happy to enter this discussion with my friend, David Smith, who is endeavoring to prove that Christians under the new covenant must keep the Sabbath of the law. I appreciate being able to continue the discussion begun in the newspaper and to have this opportunity of delving deeper into this subject with my opponent.

While my friend failed to define the proposition I believe that it is clear enough in wording that there should be no question to its import.

My opponent, knowing that the Sabbath is nowhere commanded under the new covenant, must resort to the old. But this does him no good, affirming it is binding on Christians under the new covenant, unless he can prove that the old law is the new law or part thereof. This he makes a feeble attempt to do. However, all that is necessary to refute his assumption is to prove that the old law is done away. If the old law is done away it is impossible for the affirmative to make it the authority in the new. This I intend to do at this time, and at the same time showing its location historically in the scheme of redemption.

In contending for the observance of the Sabbath day of Exodus 20, Adventists overlook the significance of history which is summarized by the apostle Paul in Galatians three. This became apparent in our newspaper discussion which yet remains to be answered by David Smith. Since this discussion is to include, according to our "agreement," the newspaper discussion, I shall not redevelop the points already made but will merely summarize and await Mr. Smith's reply.

Four hundred and thirty years before the law was given at Mount Sinai, God made the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all nations be blessed . . . He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. 3:8, 16) At Sinai God made a covenant with the children of Israel, even the law. It was in this law that the Sabbath was given or made known: "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant." (Deut. 9:13-14) But this law "cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; . . . But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal. 3:17-25)

This history is too plain to be misunderstood even with expert help of Adventist teachers. The law was "added . . . till" Christ should come. Before he came, they "were kept under the law," but now that he "is come," we are no longer under the law! This law, written and engraven in stones is abolished according to Paul in 2 Corinthians 3, the text satisfying the $200 offer. In Col. 2:14 he says that Christ took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Rom. 6: 14 and Gal. 5:18, we "are not under the law." Rom. 7:4, "ye also are become dead to the law." Rom. 7:6, "we are delivered from the law." Rom. 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law." (Eph. 2:15)

The old law is done away; therefore, it could not be the new or in the new in whole or in part. Smith is prone to think that if any principles of Old Testament law are contained in the New Testament they are there by virtue of Old Testament authority. But not so! When a new law is given, it may or may not contain some of the principles of the former law. Just because some of the first's principles are adopted into the second, it does not obligate the legislature to place all of the first into the second, nor does it obligate those under the new law to keep the first law.

Let me illustrate. This country at one time was under the law of England. When we broke relationship with that country we severed responsibility to her law. When our lawmakers drafted a new law, they placed some of the good principles of the English law in it. But this did not obligate them to adopt the entire English law, nor did it obligate the freed people to continue observance of the old law. When a law is abolished, it is abolished! If any principle of the old law is to be in the new, it must be adopted therein. This, of course, must be so stated in the new law. Mr. Smith thinks that if any principles of the law of England are in the laws of the U.S., all of the English law must be kept unless they are "SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT" in the law of the U.S. This is his argument with reference to the new covenant and the old. Absurd.

My opponent needs to understand what a testament is. Testament means "will" and "covenant." (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, on diathaka, "testament".) "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." (Heb. 9:16-17) Hence, the testament of Christ, or the New Testament, is the law that went forth after his death. For a law to be binding on Christians under the new covenant, the law must be found in the new will. Nothing is in a will unless so stated. So with a covenant. One may not add to the things mentioned and only the things mentioned are binding. "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." (Gal. 3:15) Hence, if my Adventist friends would have Christians under the new covenant keep the Sabbath they must find the new testament command. Where in the will of Christ is a Christian commanded to keep the Sabbath? "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4) "Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation: which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." (Heb. 2:1-3) The will of Christ which was at the first began to be spoken by the Lord was confirmed by them that heard him. Therefore, under the new covenant we live according to His word as confirmed by the apostles. (John 14: 26, 16:13) If the Sabbath is to be observed today we must find it commanded in the New Testament, not before it first began to be given. If the Sabbath is taught without such commandment the teacher transgresses the New Testament! Such a teacher has not God nor Christ, and is a liar (John 9, 1 John 3:4) Further, the apostle Paul wrote, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8-9) My disputant must show us in the gospel that Paul preached the command to keep the Sabbath or, in the language of Paul, "let him be accursed."

We are not under the law but under the new covenant! (Heb. 8:6-13) It is not enough to find the Sabbath given in the law which has been done away. Let us have the Adventists give the text commanding a Christian to keep the Sabbath.

Now let us further investigate some of the claims made by Mr. Smith. In trying to bring the Old Law into the New, as I have already pointed out, Mr. Smith assumes a rule that all the Old Testament is included in the New unless "SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT" not in it. This is contrary to law, logic, and the scriptures as already shown. I ask my opponent for the scripture teaching his rule. It, like many other doctrines of the Adventists, is not to be found outside of Adventist theories and assumptions. However, if Mr. Smith's rule were true it would not help him for in Col. 2:14-16 it is SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT to "let no man pass judgment on you in questions of a Sabbath." I'll have more to say of this presently.

The affirmative next makes a quibble on 2 Tim. 3:15-16. Certainly the Old Testament is true and ought to be taught, for "all these things happened to them for ensamples; and they are for our admonition," "for whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4) This is far from saying that the Old Testament is written for our authority as Mr. Smith would like to imply. Rather, Jesus is our "authority," "and hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." (Matt. 28:18, 1 John 2:3).

Col. 2 :14-16 seems to bother my Adventist friends. No wonder. Here we have a command that SPECIFICALLY POINTS OUT that the Sabbath along with the holyday and feasts be not observed. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." The law having been abolished, "nailed to his cross," let no man judge you of the Sabbath (which, after all, is a part of that law which has been abolished: therefore). In 1 Chronicles 23:30-31, 2 Chronicles 2:4, 18:13, 31:3, Neh. 10:33, we have set forth the feasts as kept by the Jews. In these references we have the services specified as morning and evening (being the daily service), in the Sabbath (being the weekly service), the new moon (being the monthly service), the solemn or set feast (being the annual service as outlined in Leviticus 23). The Jews observed feasts daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. Now notice Col. 2 :16: "Let no man judge you in meat or drink (daily), or in respect of an holyday (yearly), or of the new moon (monthly), or of the Sabbath days (weekly)." Hence, the weekly Sabbath is SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT!

These are a shadow of things to come, therefore my friend reasons that the weekly Sabbath could not be included as it was a memorial pointing back to creation. My opponent then leads us to believe that the Sabbath is a memorial for us, but he misses the boat. I have shown him before, but he refuses to look, that the Sabbath with all the law was given to the Jews: "Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations ... It is a sign between me and the children of Israel." (Ex. 31:13, 17) Remember that the law (Sabbath included) was "added . . . till" Christ came. All these things were a shadow and must continue in force till the body, Christ should come. Paul therefore says, "the body is of Christ." Evidently there was some effort being made to bind the disciples at Colosse under the law, forcing them to be circumcised and submit to the law. Paul corrects this false teaching, saying that the law was ''nailed to the cross.'' The Christ had come and the law had served its purpose. Therefore let no man judge you in the law which are a shadow of things to come, even Christ. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him," et cetera. (Read verses 6-17) Also consider Hebrews 4:3-11.

I noticed with particular interest Mr. Smith's comments: "It has been argued that in the phrase 'Sabbath days' in Col. 2:16, that the word 'days' is in italics, and that the text should read, 'Or of the Sabbath.' Such an argument is merely a play on words and an insult to the intelligence of any scholarly audience." Maybe my opponent will compliment the intelligence of this audience by telling us just what is the significance of the italicized word. I shall eagerly await his answer. Too, he might explain why some translations omit the word "days." Again, since he has made reference to the Greek, maybe he will tell us the Greek word for "days" in Col. 2:16.

I was surprised to see David Smith bring up the $200 text again. I was under the impression that he had had enough of "texts" and especially 2 Corinthians 3. I attended his service at which time he advertised to "answer all doctrinal charges" made in the paper, but I failed to hear any mention of the text. In fact, my opponent seems to have overlooked all of the scriptures discussed in the paper except two! (We agreed on one all along.) Now since he is bringing in 2 Corinthians 3, maybe he will answer the arguments made in the paper.

My friends would have us to believe that only the glory of the law was abolished but not the law itself. And so he wants to bring an unglorious law into the new law! But notice the eleventh verse (2 Corinthians 3): "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." To what does "that" refer? If it refers to "glory" then we accuse Paul of unintelligent tautology and the glory of the law is not done away as stated; hence, a contradiction. But notice verses 7-8 "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious . . . how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?" What was glorious? "The ministration of death, written and engraven in stones was glorious." What happened to it? "Is done away." Notice that my friend has already admitted in the paper that this refers to the ten commandments! The $200 that Mr. Smith and the Seventh-day Adventist Church have again offered ought to be forthcoming. His honesty and the integrity of the SDA church are at stake.

Next our attention is called to Rom. 3 :31, ''Do we then made void the law through faith?" The article is not found before ''law," but is found before "faith" hence, "Do we then make void law through THE faith?" (See translation notes, Revised Version) Do you mean to affirm, Mr. Smith, that every time law is mentioned that it refers to the law of Moses or the ten commandments? And answer this: Does God have any law besides the ten commandments?

We are next given James 2:10-12 to prove (?) that the ten commandments are binding. Has Mr. Smith ever noticed that in the eighth verse there is quoted a commandment not found in the ten? Does this mean that we are to keep all the law in which it is found? But James does not mention the Sabbath commandment at all. He did not say keep it. He referred to the "law of liberty." (v. 12)

All of the scriptures used to show the "importance" of the Sabbath save one, refer to its observance before the New Covenant was established. (Heb. 9:16-17) The one quoted under the New Testament is Acts 16:13, "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a riverside, where prayer was wont to be made." This says nothing of keeping the Sabbath. What my friend must find to sustain his contention is a command for Christians to keep the Sabbath, or an example of a Christian who kept it under the new covenant. To date my opponent has done neither. His best has been to assume and flit through the archives of the Old Testament. Our discussion is not whether or not the Sabbath has ever been commanded or its importance to those to whom it was given. Our proposition reads that Christians under the new covenant must keep the Sabbath. My opponent says, "Yes.'' Let's have the scripture!!!

I believe that this answers all arguments he has made in support of his proposition. If anything has been overlooked, I ask that he call it to my attention. I don't want to overlook anything.

I shall present some things more for Mr. Smith to consider now. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the children of Israel. (Ex. 31:13, 17) It then could not be binding on any other people than the Jews and those proselyted to the Jewish religion. It could not continue in force longer than the Jews were the peculiar people of God. Notice now : (1) None during the Jewish age could acceptably come to God except by identifying himself with God's sanctified. (2) The Sabbath was not in force previous to the giving of the Sinaitic law. (3) It was never given to others than the Israelite people. (4) It could not continue in force longer than the law of which it is a part is in force. Paul said in Romans 3:19, "Now we know that what things soever the law says, it says to them that are under the law." Therefore, if the Sabbath was in force today without change, no Gentile as such would be bound to observe it. Even the Seventh-day Adventist Churches that are made up of Gentiles would not be obligated to keep it. It was not given to the Gentiles as such.

Furthermore, the law (including the Sabbath commandment) was never intended to be permanent, nothing more than "added ... till" Christ should come fulfilling the promise. This change from the covenant given at Sinai was frequently foretold by the prophets during the existence of the Sinaitic covenant. Jeremiah foretold the change: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer. 31:31-33) This scripture is quoted in Hebrews 8:7-10 by the apostle Paul showing that the covenant containing the Sabbath law was abolished in Christ. Again, the abolishment is foretold by Jeremiah in 32:40 and 33:14. Isaiah foretells the change in 55:3 and Ezekiel in 37:26. Even the expressions regarding the Sabbath show that it was limited to the Jewish age. Exodus 31:16, "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations." This shows that it was not permanent. You never read, "Thou shalt not kill throughout your generations." Or, "The children of Israel shall not commit adultery throughout their generations." Of course not! But, "the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath . . . throughout their generations." The expression shows that the Sabbath was not to be permanent. It was limited to the generation of Jews. When they ceased to be the sanctified people of God, the law having been abolished, the Sabbath was no longer binding. It was done away with all the law.

Even after the death of Christ, after the law had been "nailed to the cross," men contended that the law should be kept (which included the Sabbath). From the very infancy of the church it was a subject of hot controversy, "Shall we keep the law?" Some teachers of Judaic tendency insisted that Christians keep the law. You remember that Paul and Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem that with the apostles and elders there they might reach a decision on the issue. The apostle Peter on the occasion stood forth and related his experience in the conversion of the Gentiles of the house of Cornelius. He concluded, "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear?" (Acts 15:10) This yoke was the Sinaitic law. Even David violated the Sabbath and ate bread in the temple which was unlawful to do. Have you not read that the priests profane the Sabbath and are blameless? They could not bear it. Hence, the apostles, elders and brethren wrote letters to the churches saying, "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment."

In practically every letter the apostle Paul wrote to the churches he spent much time and effort in the discussion of keeping the law. To the church at Rome: 3:20, 7:4-7. To the Corinthians: 2 Cor. 3:3-11. To Galatia: 3:10-25. To Ephesus: 2:14-15. To the Colossians: 2:14-16. To the Hebrews: 8:6-13, 10:28-29, 12:18-25. Et cetera. Of all topics discussed in the New Testament, none is so fully treated as the matter of keeping the law and none so repudiated by the weight of evidence as the modern doctrine commanding men to keep the Sabbath.

I emphasize: Sabbath keeping is without New Testament authority. I challenge any man to produce the text commanding a Christian to keep the Sabbath!

In the newspaper, my opponent attempted to establish two laws at Sinai. One he designated the ''Law of God'' and the other "Handwriting of Ordinances.'' This line of argument he has since dropped, as well as other arguments made in the paper, unless he intends to develop it in his contention in James 2, but we will wait for that. Before he has more to say along that line, I recall to him my newspaper reply, and ask, Where are the scriptures that say that the "ten commandments'' and the "rest of the law" are "two separate laws"? If the Adventists be right in this contention (and they are not), then there are three laws: two at Sinai and one by promise in Christ make three. But of course this is just not so. There was only one covenant made at Sinai. "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal, 4:21-26) Get it! Paul says there are two Covenants -- Adventists affirm three. Paul said there is "one from mount Sinai" -- Adventists say "two." So Adventists hopelessly contradicts the Bible. (And itself as I shall point out as the discussion progresses.) But further: Agar, the bondwoman, is mount Sinai. (v. 22, 25) Now notice verses 30-5:1 -- Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

One law was given at Sinai and we are free from it. Notice, too, that Paul said the son of the bondwoman (law at mount Sinai) shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman (the law of liberty). Yet, my opponent has endeavored to make ALL the law heir with the will of Christ except the parts "specifically pointed out" -- the very thing that Paul said should not be!

Rewording the proposition to affirm the truth, we have: "The Bible clearly teaches that the fourth commandment of the Decalogue -- viz., 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy' -- is NOT binding on Christians under the new covenant."

The third paragraph of Mr. Frost's First Negative says, "My opponent, knowing that the Sabbath is nowhere commanded under the new covenant, must resort to the old." Here I have received credit for knowing something which I do not know. If this is the case someone should enlighten me.